7-08 Alberta moose

[BFD]

RE: seating depth. This is a huge revelation to me.
All Ive ever heard in this forum and any forum, from experienced Hammer loaders is Hammers are not sensitive to seating depth. Then all I ever read is how Hammers are different and throw everything you know about traditional bullets out the window. Members that question this, get shown to read a dozen stickie threads to confirm the why, with no simple explanations just go read.

A little frustrating as Ive left a tool off the table to fine tune my own Hammer handloads. I'll be experimenting with seating depth nodes for my group size now.

So, ELDMs, some Bergers, are quite jump sensitive. Some mess with .003 jump with them, I do .010 min jump changes.
Hammers are jump insensitive (Not jump Proof) in that if they don't work good seated in the second valley, then it's the first. Sometimes, depending on the rifle, a Hammer will take a .120+ jump. The 308 WIN 137HH works best in my bolt gun in the second crimp with only .010-.015 jump. Most all the other Hammers are .040- .050 and under .075 jump, and seated in the first valley/groove.

 

[gltaylor]

Agree with above.
I've so far only had to get closer (0.10) with one load. The rest jump from .20 (where I start) to as much as 0.160.
If a bullet doesn't want to shoot, I jump in .20-.30 increments farther and farther. Fine tuning is now done solely with the factory crimp/primers.
jm2cw

 

[Koda]

To me switching drive band valleys -is- adjusting seating depth.

The way Ive always read it was the valley was chosen by the distance to lands for best case capacity (velocity)... because "hammers arent sensitive to jump".
Been scratching my head how you all get these half moa groups.

 

[BFD]

To me switching drive band valleys -is- adjusting seating depth.

You bet. Pretty decent jump between them. Only one Hammer I've tied so far, 137HH in a longer throated 308 WIN, liked the second valley.

The way Ive always read it was the valley was chosen by the distance to lands for best case capacity (velocity)... because "hammers arent sensitive to jump".

Ideally, all bullet bases would sit evenly at the junction of shoulder/neck and the entire case could be used for powder. That rarely happens though with longer length Hammers, so primary becomes the accuracy between the two valleys.

Been scratching my head how you all get these half moa groups.

Well, there is a lot to discuss on fundamentals of marksmanship, and I've even picked up some techniques in the last couple years that help bughole the groups. I'll need to dedicate a thread to it sometime.

 

[cbjr]

Been scratching my head how you all get these half moa groups.

Quite a few times for me a little to alot of luck has been involved. Haven't messed with varying crimp levels yet, but I kind of eyeball my dummy round and increase crimp until case mouth just touches bottom of valley, then start loading ladder from that setting on FCD.

Both the 168HHT and 137HH in my rum are crimped in the 2nd valley behind the shoulder. 168HHT is 3.746 oal and 137HH is 3.667. The 168HHT is approximately 0.030 off the lands gives it about 0.110 jump. In a 6.5cm I've had a 2-3 inch group drop to sub moa by moving crimp from the first to second valley. So I've had it both ways.

Edit for clarity: gives it (the 137HH) about a 0.110 jump

 

[Steve Davis]

RE: seating depth. This is a huge revelation to me.
All Ive ever heard in this forum and any forum, from experienced Hammer loaders is Hammers are not sensitive to seating depth. Then all I ever read is how Hammers are different and throw everything you know about traditional bullets out the window. Members that question this, get shown to read a dozen stickie threads to confirm the why, with no simple explanations just go read.

A little frustrating as Ive left a tool off the table to fine tune my own Hammer handloads. I'll be experimenting with seating depth nodes for my group size now.

Load development that doesn't go easy is always frustrating! We have developed hundreds of loads. The absolute lions share have been done in under 20 shots. That's not to say that there haven't been some that took nearly 100 rounds to figure out the powder, primer, seating depth, brass that was needed. Usually a half a dozen shots in a pressure ladder and another half a dozen to confirm velocity and zero the rifle produces solid sub moa.

There is lots of ways to solve load development issues. And probably all correct! I think we could cover more ground over the phone. Give me a call tomorrow and I will be happy to try and help. 406 261 0010

 

[Modoc]

@Eaglemountainman, I have been following this thread since I am considering transitioning from 120g “B” bullets to the 120g HH. Something that I encountered in prior load development was a simple as a powder change. The wife’s REM 700 got down to 5/8” group at 100 with a LOT of work (80+ rounds), but my custom 660 was throwing 4” groups with the same load. By simply switching from H4895 to RL-15 and using a similar charge weight the 660 gave me a 1/2” group at 100 yards. These two powders were very close on the burn rate chart 10+ years ago when the loads were developed. Each rifle seems to perform fabulously with minor component changes.

With that said, what are your acceptable accuracy goals? Does group size trump multi rifle logistics (I’m loading for 5 7-08’s)? These are ALL calls that You will have to make.

 

[Koda]

Load development that doesn't go easy is always frustrating! We have developed hundreds of loads. The absolute lions share have been done in under 20 shots. That's not to say that there haven't been some that took nearly 100 rounds to figure out the powder, primer, seating depth, brass that was needed. Usually a half a dozen shots in a pressure ladder and another half a dozen to confirm velocity and zero the rifle produces solid sub moa.

There is lots of ways to solve load development issues. And probably all correct! I think we could cover more ground over the phone. Give me a call tomorrow and I will be happy to try and help. 406 261 0010

@Steve Davis tomorrow I will be at work where I wont be able to sit down for a long personal call but I am grateful for the opportunity offered.

I have a lot to learn about load development, but since I switched to Hammers my results have improved, I know they work and am sticking with them. I love the bullets and this forum is essential and am dedicated to hunting exclusively with them. I have pointed out an inconsistency in the basics presented here that seem to be supported by Hammer, seating depth and traditional methods... at least to me, do correct me if wrong anywhere. If seating depth and changing powders, primers, brass can be part of the tuning process then Hammers are not that different. Ive read the required stickies here and heeded the "Hammers are different" mantra. When I read from Hammer "not sensitive to seating depth" I took a tool off the table to tune my group size when I have experienced what the OP has here (only Im not giving up...). In that regard, this is confusing to people new to Hammers that want to make it happen.

What I still see as different is if one needs to crimp, its best to crimp into a PDR valley changing how we tune for groups because the distance between bands is much larger than seating depth nodes. There's a lot of influence here to crimp too, and I suspect its not always needed. I think the "Hammers are different" mantra needs to focus only on where thats at.


Just sharing my thoughts on this.

 

[BFD]

@Steve Davis tomorrow I will be at work where I wont be able to sit down for a long personal call but I am grateful for the opportunity offered.

I have a lot to learn about load development, but since I switched to Hammers my results have improved, I know they work and am sticking with them. I love the bullets and this forum is essential and am dedicated to hunting exclusively with them. I have pointed out an inconsistency in the basics presented here that seem to be supported by Hammer, seating depth and traditional methods... at least to me, do correct me if wrong anywhere. If seating depth and changing powders, primers, brass can be part of the tuning process then Hammers are not that different. Ive read the required stickies here and heeded the "Hammers are different" mantra. When I read from Hammer "not sensitive to seating depth" I took a tool off the table to tune my group size when I have experienced what the OP has here (only Im not giving up...). In that regard, this is confusing to people new to Hammers that want to make it happen.

What I still see as different is if one needs to crimp, its best to crimp into a PDR valley changing how we tune for groups because the distance between bands is much larger than seating depth nodes. There's a lot of influence here to crimp too, and I suspect its not always needed. I think the "Hammers are different" mantra needs to focus only on where thats at.


Just sharing my thoughts on this.

Koda, have you tried seating 2nd valley and 1st valley to compare? (So long as your 2nd valley isn’t jammed into the lands)

 

[Steve Davis]

@Steve Davis tomorrow I will be at work where I wont be able to sit down for a long personal call but I am grateful for the opportunity offered.

I have a lot to learn about load development, but since I switched to Hammers my results have improved, I know they work and am sticking with them. I love the bullets and this forum is essential and am dedicated to hunting exclusively with them. I have pointed out an inconsistency in the basics presented here that seem to be supported by Hammer, seating depth and traditional methods... at least to me, do correct me if wrong anywhere. If seating depth and changing powders, primers, brass can be part of the tuning process then Hammers are not that different. Ive read the required stickies here and heeded the "Hammers are different" mantra. When I read from Hammer "not sensitive to seating depth" I took a tool off the table to tune my group size when I have experienced what the OP has here (only Im not giving up...). In that regard, this is confusing to people new to Hammers that want to make it happen.

What I still see as different is if one needs to crimp, its best to crimp into a PDR valley changing how we tune for groups because the distance between bands is much larger than seating depth nodes. There's a lot of influence here to crimp too, and I suspect its not always needed. I think the "Hammers are different" mantra needs to focus only on where thats at.


Just sharing my thoughts on this.

I think Hammers tolerance to seating depth gives them a reputation that they are not sensitive to seating depth. I find that having to adjust seating depth to find good accuracy more of a rifle personality than a Hammer issue. We have had rifles that show no difference in group when changing seating and some that respond very well. Barrel harmonics are always going to be there even with bullets that don't usually see much effect from it. You have a rifle that may or may not respond to adjusting seating depth. I don't think this negates the Hammer reputation of tolerance to seating depth.

As a general rule in load development I am much more likely to change components than I am to tinker a load to make the rifle like what I want it to. Not so easy to do if you don't have a large collection of different components.

 

[Koda]

I think Hammers tolerance to seating depth gives them a reputation that they are not sensitive to seating depth. I find that having to adjust seating depth to find good accuracy more of a rifle personality than a Hammer issue. We have had rifles that show no difference in group when changing seating and some that respond very well. Barrel harmonics are always going to be there even with bullets that don't usually see much effect from it. You have a rifle that may or may not respond to adjusting seating depth. I don't think this negates the Hammer reputation of tolerance to seating depth.

I think a greater tolerance to seating depth isn't the same thing as "not sensitive" to seating depth. Its probably me over analyzing things, but Ive always interpreted the latter as meaning I could seat the bullet wherever I wanted and it wouldn't affect precision. Maybe as I get more experience I will see this the differently. Curious, can the same be said for traditional (c&c) bullets?

As a general rule in load development I am much more likely to change components than I am to tinker a load to make the rifle like what I want it to. Not so easy to do if you don't have a large collection of different components.

Yes, this is where my perspectives are at. I only started handloading a couple years ago, deep into the supply chain issues so I dont have a lot of components to try. Ive had no choice but to learn somehow to make what I did scrounge up work. The last 9 months or so has seen an improvement and Ive been able to jump on that and pick up a couple more different powders, but prices are rising fast.
I fully agree with trying different components, but it might not be practical for everyone.

 

[Steve Davis]

I think a greater tolerance to seating depth isn't the same thing as "not sensitive" to seating depth. Its probably me over analyzing things, but Ive always interpreted the latter as meaning I could seat the bullet wherever I wanted and it wouldn't affect precision. Maybe as I get more experience I will see this the differently. Curious, can the same be said for traditional (c&c) bullets?

Yes, this is where my perspectives are at. I only started handloading a couple years ago, deep into the supply chain issues so I dont have a lot of components to try. Ive had no choice but to learn somehow to make what I did scrounge up work. The last 9 months or so has seen an improvement and Ive been able to jump on that and pick up a couple more different powders, but prices are rising fast.
I fully agree with trying different components, but it might not be practical for everyone.

I have loaded Bergers once. They have a reputation of being very sensitive to jump and needing to be tuned very specifically to get good accuracy. I did my load in a few shots and held half moa out to 900y. Never checked distance to lands or made any adjustments. I think people should stop calling Bergers sensitive to jump.

I'm not sure what it is you want?

 

[Steve Davis]

@Koda i am generally at the shop till about 7 mountain time.

 

[Koda]

I have loaded Bergers once. They have a reputation of being very sensitive to jump and needing to be tuned very specifically to get good accuracy. I did my load in a few shots and held half moa out to 900y. Never checked distance to lands or made any adjustments. I think people should stop calling Bergers sensitive to jump.

I'm not sure what it is you want?

I get your point and am just trying to learn. Im fairly new to handloading so I participate here to learn. Im not wanting anything in the sense to change how Hammer describes their process, I just feel like Ive stumbled onto an inconsistency here in how seating depth plays a role in tuning a hanload which has affected my own learning, ...at least one Hammer loader here above has described using all the same methods as traditional bullets to tune precision, including seating depth. I could be way off ...so until I actually do my own seating depth tests and see what I get Im ok with going back to just listening to others recommendations. But I am very thankful to have the chance to discuss directly on handloading Hammers.

 

[RichCoyle]

To me switching drive band valleys -is- adjusting seating depth.

The way Ive always read it was the valley was chosen by the distance to lands for best case capacity (velocity)... because "hammers arent sensitive to jump".
Been scratching my head how you all get these half moa groups.

Just lucky here I guess.

 

[gltaylor]

@Koda ,
Have you by chance read the "What have we learned" thread under Reloading?
If not, that may help?
Hammers are not sensitive to jump in the traditional sense of cup & cores. You don't have to chase the lands/throat like many did/do today.
Choosing a PDR band for seating depth is largely a function of finding where your rifle will feed smoothly.
Once found, just work up to pressure, drop back a grain or so and go for groups.
Changing seating depth in small increments is a waste of time. Changing seating depth by a PDR band width Will be changing seating depth - but in increments of ~.020 or MORE depending upon which bullet you're using.
You'll get better results when trying to "tune" a load (with Hammers) by changing powder, primers or crimp amount (if crimping).
If crimping, it seems best to crimp into a PDR groove. If not crimping, it may be preferable (to me at least), to seat the bullet so the case mouth is on Top of a PDR band for good contact with your chosen neck tension.
Jmtcw

 

[Steve Davis]

I get your point and am just trying to learn. Im fairly new to handloading so I participate here to learn. Im not wanting anything in the sense to change how Hammer describes their process, I just feel like Ive stumbled onto an inconsistency here in how seating depth plays a role in tuning a hanload which has affected my own learning, ...at least one Hammer loader here above has described using all the same methods as traditional bullets to tune precision, including seating depth. I could be way off ...so until I actually do my own seating depth tests and see what I get Im ok with going back to just listening to others recommendations. But I am very thankful to have the chance to discuss directly on handloading Hammers.

There is no absolutes when it comes to guns and ammo. There is no such thing as a load that shoots lights out in every rifle. There is such things as trends. Like Ruger American rifles. I've had my hands on at least a dozen of them and they all shot solid sub moa. I am very comfortable recommending them to people looking for a new rifle. It is easy to say they "always shoot great". I'm sure someone here has had one that didn't work out so good. Doesn't change my perspective on Ruger Americans. Hammer Bullets are very tolerant to seating depth. So much so that Wheatherby says the ammo they make with Hammers shoots more accurately from rifle to rifle than any other bullet they have loaded. The amount of loads that have been created using Hammers, that required no adjustment of seating depth to get solid sub moa accuracy, gives them the reputation of being insensitive to seating depth. The occasional rifle or load that needs tinkering doesn't change that reputation.

For what it's worth, nowhere have I or Hammer Bullets ever made the claim that our Bullets never require seating depth adjustment to achieve accuracy.

 

[les]

I totally agree with Steve. I'm not sure which reloading dies you are using, but I had a bad set of reloading dies about 20 years ago. Have you tried a different set of dies?

 

[Koda]

The amount of loads that have been created using Hammers, that required no adjustment of seating depth to get solid sub moa accuracy, gives them the reputation of being insensitive to seating depth. The occasional rifle or load that needs tinkering doesn't change that reputation.

This makes sense and is a good explaination, thank you.

My apologies if I caused any confusion above. I appreciate all the replies and conversation here and the chance to ask questions.

 

[Steve Davis]

We have four rifles to develop this week for a hunting trip and two are being donated to Christian Outdoor Alliance. I expect that they will all go smoothly, but there is sure a chance that one of these rifles will be harder than expected. Probably my full custom BeanMore that we will be trying a prototype bullet in!! I am sure that we will try several diff powders to see if one shines above the others, so I am expecting we will shoot it quite a bit. Fingers crossed that we get what we hope with the first powder choice, although I know we will try others just to see.

Because I know someone is going to ask, the prototype is a 105gr AHT.